Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Salem Terminal Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1926
• Citation: 152 N.E. 61,256 Mass. 95
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: PHILADELPHIA & READING COAL & IRON CO. v. SALEM TERMINAL CORPORATION.

256 Mass. 95

152 N.E. 61

PHILADELPHIA & READING COAL & IRON CO.

v.SALEM TERMINAL CORPORATION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 27, 1926.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton, Judge.

Bill in equity by the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company against the Salem Terminal Corporation to enjoin defendant from placing piles, sea wall, or structures in such proximity as would interfere with plaintiff's use of wharf. From a decree granting plaintiff a channel of tapering width, it appeals. Affirmed.

C. F. Lovejoy, of Boston, for plaintiff.

H. F. Knight, of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

After the decision of this case (Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Salem Terminal Corp., 252 Mass. 439, 148 N. E. 444), a decree was entered in the superior court restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's access to the wharf in question ‘within a space alongside said triangular section seventy-five (75) feet wide measured southwesterly * * * such width tapering to a width of at least forty (40) feet at a point opposite the southeasterly end of the riprap.’ From this decree the plaintiff appealed. It contends that a decree, in accordance with the opinion of the full court, should enjoin the defendant from building nearer the plaintiff's wharf than seventy-five feet at the seaward end, and seventy feet for the entire length of the space.

The decree followed the opinion, and was justified by it. The opinion did not intend to give the plaintiff the right to an unobstructed space seventy-five feet wide at one end and of the width of seventy feet its entire length. After a discussion of the rights of the parties, the opinion continues with these words:

‘The final decree further required the defendant to stop the construction of the sea wall at a point which will leave an open channel of only forty feet in width for the mooring and docking of vessels. The plaintiff, who appealed, contends that it should be seventy-five feet. The master on evidence properly received reports, that, if the channel is limited to forty or fifty feet, it will be necessary to bring in a lighter by pushing with a tug, warping it in by lines, and it can be taken out only by a tug with a stern line. ‘This is a proper method of handling such boats in narrow spaces.’ ‘The customary and usual method, however, where the space is unlimited is to use a tug alongside of the stern of the boat for about one-third of the boat's...